Excell-
I find the discussion interesting AND Ravens related, thinking back to situations like Jamal Lewis before he went to Cleve, or when Priest Holmes "jumped ship" to KC.

But I have to disagree with "Then the same should go for the front office. So, no players should be getting cut. If they overplay their contract and should still honor it, a front office should also honor that contract when they are considering getting rid of an aging player or a player on the decline."

The contract game (if you will) is not played that way, and ALL of the players (pun intended) know it - draftees, veterans, walk-ons, agents, team owners, general managers, coaches, etc., etc. That's why there is guaranteed money and bonuses. Not that I see anyone on a higher moral ground in that picture, but players get up-front money that is a risk to the team(s) if the player doesn't pan out, while teams try to manage their CAP and use the cutting of "expensive" contract players later in their tenure as well as the "Watch my hands closely as they never leave my arms!" accounting techniques. When it comes down to the bottom line, they all want as much as they can squeeze out of "the other side", and screw the cost to the fans.

Not that I feel strongly about this, you understand...;)

08-23-2012, 10:14 AM

Shas

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Excellector

When did they threaten to blow up the locker room chemistry?

I didn't mean they verbally threatened the locker room chemistry. I meant that he purposely incited a PR situation and purposely pushed his unhappiness into the public discourse.

I probably should have said that MJD and his agent were "risking," not "threatening," a locker room blow up.

If that's the case -- if that's the concern -- then MJD is just as responsible for locker room strife as Khan.

I say that because we all know how this works. 1) Player's agent privately contacts management about new contract. 2) Management informs agent they are not ready to negotiate a new deal with two years left on current deal. 3) It goes back and forth without management budging. 4) Agent tells player to sit-out of camp to "create leverage" and knowing the PR fallout will pressure management to keep star player happy. 5) Press goes to management and asks, "gee, your star player seems unhappy. What are you guys going to do about it? Doesn't this really disrupt your team?" 6) Team forced to respond publicly.

As I said, all the PR stuff is pointless gamesmanship to me. Talk of locker room effects is pointless to me.

What it really comes down to is if you feel MJD has a right to feel unhappy. You believe he outplayed his contract. I do not. Or, more to the point, I feel that this is the nature of signing a long term deal, as others have said.

I used to make the same argument that contracts are too one sided. Owners always have an out -- cutting a guy -- with minor ramifications to the cap.

Players don't have an out.

That seems unfair. However, this unfairness is already factored in in the form of guaranteed money. If you don't like the idea then don't sign a long term deal with a big guaranteed bonus. Play for one year deals. Or take less upfront in exchange for player options after three years. Everything is negotiatable and MJB negotiated it away when he took the bones money upfront.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Cactus

I don't think the issue is weather or not Kahn disrespected MJD. The issues is weather or not Kahn said something that could be interpreted by a player as disrespect.

Kahn has every right to disrespect anyone he wants, it just doesn't make good business sense to risk offending a star player. Stick to your guns and don't talk about it publicly. That's what smart owners and smart GMs do.

I do agree with this. While Khan hasn't been disrespectful, in my view, he could have been more coy with the press. Something closer to no-comment would have put the PR ball in MJD's court.

That said, I'm reading that most fans support the owner. Strange, since he just sold them down river vis-a-vis London.

08-23-2012, 10:21 AM

LukeDaniel

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Cactus

Jones-Drew is well within his right to hold out.

Technically, it's not his right. He's violating his contract, which explains why he is being fined.

08-23-2012, 11:09 AM

Stealthbirds80

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

Holy crap, I forgot that MJD is only 27 lol( I thought he was 29 or so). Forgive me, it's only Thursday and I'm getting weekend brain.

08-23-2012, 11:14 AM

wickedsolo

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

If I were Jax, I'd trade him.

I get the whole idea of how it's not fair that teams can cut guys for underperforming contracts and players are stuck when they outperform it.

But on the whole...my belief is that I agree with the young guys who are are stars, yet are still in their rookie deals...not so much vet stars who are pissed 2-3 years into record contracts.

If a player wants to constantly be at the top pay for his position, he needs to sacrifice some in terms of the length of these deals they sign. If you are elite, and stay elite after signing a 5 year deal, your contract is guaranteed to be passed by quite a bit 3-4 years into it.

Back to the question though, I would not give him a new deal if he is expecting to break the bank again. The team is still going to be bad, with or without him...he doesn't make Jax into a contender or anything.

I'd get what I could for him in a trade...draft picks.

:word

There are plenty of teams out there that would be interested in giving up a 2nd or 3rd rounder for MJD. I doubt he'd garner a 1st round pick given his age. Not one team was chomping at the bit to sent Pittsburgh a 1st rounder for Mike Wallace and he's younger and at a much more premium position than MJD is.

Miami, Pittsburgh (if they could afford it), Jets, Pats, Lions, Cardinals, Redskins, Bills, Chargers and possibly even the Colts or Raiders might be interested in trading for MJD.

08-23-2012, 11:16 AM

wickedsolo

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealthbirds80

Holy crap, I forgot that MJD is only 27 lol( I thought he was 29 or so). Forgive me, it's only Thursday and I'm getting weekend brain.

The pounding he has taken as being the Jags only real source of offense the past 2-3 years is what makes him "old".

08-23-2012, 11:31 AM

GOTA

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

:word

There are plenty of teams out there that would be interested in giving up a 2nd or 3rd rounder for MJD. I doubt he'd garner a 1st round pick given his age. Not one team was chomping at the bit to sent Pittsburgh a 1st rounder for Mike Wallace and he's younger and at a much more premium position than MJD is.

Miami, Pittsburgh (if they could afford it), Jets, Pats, Lions, Cardinals, Redskins, Bills, Chargers and possibly even the Colts or Raiders might be interested in trading for MJD.

Jets have already said they aren't interested. Picks and a new contract makes it way too expensive. I'd love to see what Jones-Drew could do on the Chargers. He'd be perfect for Norv's offense.

08-23-2012, 11:46 AM

Kyle Cactus

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shas

That said, I'm reading that most fans support the owner. Strange, since he just sold them down river vis-a-vis London.

That is surprising. They must really be unhappy with the holdout to side with an owner who just moved home games out of the country.

08-23-2012, 11:50 AM

Stealthbirds80

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle Cactus

That is surprising. They must really be happy with the holdout to side with an owner who just moved home games out of the country.

I think a fanbase that hasn't had much to cheer about recently is getting hoodwinked by preseason success. A casual fan's memory is week to week when it comes to the NFL.

08-23-2012, 01:16 PM

The Excellector

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

The idea that Jones-Drew played at such a high level, that he deserved such a high contract, should not negate the reality that he is currently outplaying the parameters of the remaining portion of the contract.

The idea that Jones-Drew is an RB, which is considered a devalued position, should not negate the reality that they are going to once again pound Jones-Drew into the ground, making him a substantial portion of their offense.

The idea that Jones-Drew used his one possible move for leverage, should not negate the reality that the Owner made the negotiations public with some remarks that we would never hear come from an owner such as the one we enjoy.

Beau Petard,

my comment was in response to another poster. I understand where you are coming from. I take the stance if we are going to play this game, play this game, but don't say that it's okay for the owners to play it while the player has to honor his contract. Jones-Drew probably won't get a raise for outplaying his contract (In my opinion) and will find himself cut the minute he starts underplaying it or gets hurt.
(This directed toward the poster that I was originally responding to)

I actually believe that this will have a large impact in the locker room. Team chemistry is easy for us to under-appreciate, because the Ravens have so much of it. That is not the case in Jacksonville and there are plenty of players who look to Jones-Drew, who has always been a respected figure around the league and model citizen. The negotiations are one thing, but to say that his absence won't 'move the needle' or 'move the meter', sends a message to the team of how they view their best player and long-time leader. I believe that will affect chemistry in the locker room and that translates to the field.

08-23-2012, 01:45 PM

Ravenswintitle

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

I don't see this ending any way other than MJD reporting to camp with his tail between his legs; just a matter of when.

There aren't many teams lining up to trade for a disgruntled RB who wants a big payday

08-26-2012, 04:12 PM

GOTA

Re: The Maurice Jones- Drew situation

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Excellector

The idea that Jones-Drew played at such a high level, that he deserved such a high contract, should not negate the reality that he is currently outplaying the parameters of the remaining portion of the contract.

The idea that Jones-Drew is an RB, which is considered a devalued position, should not negate the reality that they are going to once again pound Jones-Drew into the ground, making him a substantial portion of their offense.

The idea that Jones-Drew used his one possible move for leverage, should not negate the reality that the Owner made the negotiations public with some remarks that we would never hear come from an owner such as the one we enjoy.

Beau Petard,

my comment was in response to another poster. I understand where you are coming from. I take the stance if we are going to play this game, play this game, but don't say that it's okay for the owners to play it while the player has to honor his contract. Jones-Drew probably won't get a raise for outplaying his contract (In my opinion) and will find himself cut the minute he starts underplaying it or gets hurt.
(This directed toward the poster that I was originally responding to)

I actually believe that this will have a large impact in the locker room. Team chemistry is easy for us to under-appreciate, because the Ravens have so much of it. That is not the case in Jacksonville and there are plenty of players who look to Jones-Drew, who has always been a respected figure around the league and model citizen. The negotiations are one thing, but to say that his absence won't 'move the needle' or 'move the meter', sends a message to the team of how they view their best player and long-time leader. I believe that will affect chemistry in the locker room and that translates to the field.

Tha Jags 1 win team without MJD and a 3 win team with him. It really doesn't matter how effects the locker room because most of those players won't be there next year.